Deception: Analysis of the Lying Cues Observed by Men ...

San Jose State University San Jose State University

SJSU ScholarWorks SJSU ScholarWorks

Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research

Summer 2010

Deception: Analysis of the Lying Cues Observed by Men, Women, Deception: Analysis of the Lying Cues Observed by Men, Women,

the Self, and Others the Self, and Others

Alysha Khavarian Kadva San Jose State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Kadva, Alysha Khavarian, "Deception: Analysis of the Lying Cues Observed by Men, Women, the Self, and Others" (2010). Master's Theses. 3814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.xrwb-mhf5 https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3814

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses?utm_source=scholarworks.sjsu.edu%2Fetd_theses%2F3814&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3814?utm_source=scholarworks.sjsu.edu%2Fetd_theses%2F3814&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

DECEPTION: ANALYSIS OF THE LYING CUES OBSERVED BY MEN, WOMEN,

THE SELF, AND OTHERS

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Psychology

San Jose State University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

By

Alysha Khavarian Kadva

August 2010

© 2010


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled



by


APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY

August 2010

Dr. Greg Feist Department of Psychology

Dr. Clifton Oyamot Department of Psychology

Dr. Arlene Asuncion Department of Psychology

ABSTRACT



by Alysha Khavarian Kadva

Lying cues observed by men and women were investigated by a combination of a

2x2 mixed subjects design and a correlational design. Fifty-nine male and 68 female

fluent English-speaking college students older than 18 years of age were tasked with

completing a 64-item questionnaire and observing two video clips. The participants

completed the questionnaire for a self-assessment of the perception of their own lying

cues, observed the video clips, and then completed the questionnaire for an assessment of

the lying cues observed in the videos. Independent sample t-test results indicated that, for

self-assessment of lying cues, there was a statistically significant difference in the speech

behavior and facial behavior lying cues of men and women. Pearson correlation

indicated that there was a correlation between the lying cues and gender. Results are

discussed in terms of self-other theory and gender differences in nonverbal behavior.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the people who made this thesis possible.

Without them, this research study would have simply been a fleeting idea.

I will always be indebted to Dr. Lucy Akehurst for providing the 64-item

nonverbal questionnaire entitled “Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior” (BRDB) and

Dr. Mark Frank for providing the deceptive and the non-deceptive video clips. Without

their kindness in sharing these research tools this study would not have been possible.

I am grateful to Dr. Greg Feist for his steadfast support in helping me complete

this thesis project and Dr. Howard Tokunaga for being the catalyst that encouraged me to

write the data syntax. I would like to also thank the thesis committee members, Dr.

Clifton Oyamot and Dr. Arlene Asuncion.

Thank you to my parents, Gulrukh and Cyrus Khavarian and brothers, Anaoshak

and Rustom, for listening to me talk about things that do not make sense, being patient

test subjects, and fixing all the corrupt Word documents.

Finally, the unconditional support of my dear husband, Fredy Kadva, made the

completion of this thesis realistic. Thank you for being you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Current Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

DESIGN and METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Research Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Setting and Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Examination of Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Inferential Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Unplanned Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix A. Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior (BRDB)

Questionnaires for Self and Others’ Deceptive Behavior . . . . . . 33

Appendix B. Informed Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix C. Study Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Summary of Four Lying Cue Subscales on the Beliefs Regarding

Deceptive Behavior (BRDB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Summary of Cronbach’s Alpha of the Beliefs Regarding

Deceptive Behavior (BRDB) by Four Subscales and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3. Summary of Self Lying Cue Subscales by Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20

4. Summary of Others Lying Cue Subscales by Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. Summary of Pearson Correlations by Lying Cue Subscale of Self and Other. . . . . . 22

1

Introduction

Deceptive behavior has been explored for centuries. Deceitfulness was first

defined in 1225 by Thomas Aquinas, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian. According

to his assessment a lie is any communication of false information, regardless of the

conveyor of the information knowing the information is false (Ford, 2006). Later, Sissela

Bok, a contemporary philosopher and ethicist expanded on this definition and explained

that deception is possible if the deceiver believes a message to be false (Bok, 1978).

These interpretations by philosophers set the stage for the definition of deceptive

behavior and the research that has followed allowed researchers to better understand the

act of lying.

Research has divided lying types into two categories: minor lies, which have

minimal impact on the individual and occur in everyday life, and serious lies, which are

considered to be a significant violation of trust and occur less frequently (DePaulo,

Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). Research has also quantified the act of lying.

Over the span of one week an individual is dishonest to one-third of all the people with

whom they have social interactions (DePaulo et al., 1996). Overall, a person averages

two lies per day (DePaulo et al., 1996). A poll conducted in 1991 by the American

Psychological Press indicated that 90% of the Americans interviewed admitted they were

deceitful (Ford, 1996). Lying has also become a social skill in which the content has

been divided into three categories: “self-centered” lies are told to protect the self; “other-

oriented” lies are told to protect someone else, and “altruistic” lies are told to protect a

third party (Ennis, Vrij, & Chance, 2008).

2

As the research of lying behavior has evolved so has the method of detecting the

act of lying. The oldest recorded act of detecting deception is the biblical story of King

Solomon, who had the task of deciding which of two women was the mother of a child.

He relied on emotional response to correctly determine the mother and the deceitful

woman (Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984).

Contemporary lie detection is also based on a number of responses including

physiological reactions, polygraph measurements, and functional magnetic resonance

imaging (fMRI). The polygraph is based on the assumption that lying causes increases in

autonomic arousal, which is reflected in changes of pulse and respiration rates, blood

pressure, sweating, and galvanic skin response (GSR) or the electrical resistance of the

skin. According to the American Polygraph Association the polygraph has an average

accuracy of 98% (“Polygraph Validity Research”, n.d., para. 3).

However, validation research has indicated that the use of polygraph equipment is

controversial, due to the range of accuracy in relation to the polygraph technician and the

concerns of validity (Iacono, 2008; Iacono & Lykken, 1997). The fMRI technique,

which is based on the assumption that four regions of the brain are activated when an

individual lies, has greater accuracy than a polygraph (Simpson, 2008). The fMRI

technique is based on the idea that lying is a more complex cognitive act than telling the

truth. Therefore, greater neural activation should occur when a person is being deceptive

compared to when she or he is telling the truth. However, there are also significant

concerns about validity and reliability of brain activity revealing deception (Simpson,

2008). An additional limitation of using polygraphs and fMRI equipment is the

3

requirement of a comparison of lying and truth-telling. To accurately measure deception,

these instruments require a baseline or a pre-test of non-deceptive behavior as a

comparison to the deceptive behavior. This may be achievable in a scientific setting with

controlled conditions, but it is not always possible in a criminal and judicial setting.

Aside from the use of equipment to measure physiological responses, human

expression can be interpreted to recognize deception, similar to the previously mentioned

judgment of King Solomon (Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984). The most publicized and

widely published research (1969 to 2009) in this field is by Drs. Paul Ekman, Maureen

O’Sullivan, and Mark Frank, which has focused on facial expressions as cues for human

emotions. They noted that facial expressions of emotion can be key cues to reveal

dishonesty (Frank & Ekman, 1997). They described individual facial features which

could be classified as genuine vs. deceitful behavior (Ekman, O’Sullivan, & Frank, 1999).

Ekman’s work identified “microexpressions” as facial muscle movements that are

noticeable for a fraction of a second and can be observed, although only with practice and

by trained professionals (Ekman & Freisen, 1969). In addition, he identified “squelched

expressions” as expressions that a person is aware of making, but attempts to conceal

from others (Ekman & Friesen, 1978). A study conducted in 1991 by Ekman and

O’Sullivan asked participants to use facial, vocal, and behavioral cues to determine

whether a woman viewed on video tape was telling the truth or lying. The participants

ranged in profession from Secret Service agents, psychiatrists, judges, police officers, and

polygraph examiners. The results demonstrated that only Secret Service agents scored

better than chance levels at accurately detecting liars. Since the Secret Service agents

4

were in an occupation which required special training in deception, their experience was

correlated with their accuracy in lie detection. Specifically, Secret Service agents

focused additional attention to inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal cues than

the other groups.

Similarly, a study by Mann and colleagues (2004) was conducted with 99 police

officers who were not members of an agency that were trained to hone superior skills in

lie detection. The officers were instructed to judge the veracity and the number of lies

and truths told by potential criminals. They observed video clips of 14 suspects during

their respective police interviews. Accuracy scores of the officers demonstrated that the

truth and lie accuracy were both around 65%. There was a significant relationship

between an officer’s experience in interviewing suspects and truth accuracy. An officer’s

previous experience in interviewing suspects was correlated with higher truth accuracy

scores. These findings supported the research by Ekman and colleagues (1991) and

implied that experience enables an officer to better determine the difference between

truths and lies.

A small number of studies have expanded beyond law enforcement and have

included the general population as participants. One such study is by Akehurst and

colleagues (1996) in which the deceptive behavior beliefs of police officers were

compared to laypersons. Sixty police officers and 60 laypersons completed a postal

(distribution through the mail) survey of a 64-item questionnaire entitled “Beliefs

Regarding Deceptive Behavior” (BRDB). The two groups were stratified and asked to

complete the questionnaire based on their experiences with deception. Thirty participants

5

were instructed to recall situations in which others had lied to them and the other 30 were

instructed to recall when they themselves had lied. The results demonstrated a significant

difference between the rating of each participant’s own deceptive behavior vs. his/her

rating of the deceptive behavior of others. Specifically, participants rated larger increases

in the frequency of behavior when rating other’s deceptive behavior than when rating

their own deceptive behavior. Speech disturbances and facial behavior were rated as

having greater increases in frequency for others in comparison to themselves. The only

exceptions were “eye contact” and “turning toward the interviewer” which were rated as

decreasing for other’s deceptive behavior than their own. Overall, there were no

significant differences in the beliefs of police officers and laypersons. This study leads

one to question whether the general population may have similar beliefs as law

enforcement agencies and possibly the same ability to assess deception.

The double standard in evaluating deception in oneself and others was briefly

discussed by Bond and DePaulo (2006) in their meta-analysis of 206 unpublished and

published research documents (1941-2004) investigating deception. The basic finding

and prediction was that individuals judge other people’s lies more critically than their

own. The research indicated that people project their own moral emotions (anxiety,

shame, guilt) and stereotypes of deception on a deceiver to evaluate a lie. However,

individuals are not critical of lies told by themselves and those with whom they are

familiar or have a relationship. Interestingly, the researchers speculated that the truth

bias presented in the literature represents an extension of the self-bias to others who are

reminiscent of the self. Implying that if a liar looks like or is in a relationship with the

6

person with whom they are trying to deceive the person being deceived is less critical of

the lies. To eliminate this bias, the participants in the current investigation will evaluate

the deceptive behavior of individuals outside of their social network.

A limited number of studies have assessed the interaction of gender and lying

behavior. Initial research demonstrated that the content of a lie was gender-specific.

Men engaged in a greater number of “self-centered” lies while women participated in a

greater number of “other-oriented” lies (DePaulo et al., 1996). The review of research

literature on gender-based motivations for lying indicated that women and men have the

same frequency of lies; however the nature of the lie was different (Tosonse, 2006). The

motivation of a man’s “self-centered” lie was to enhance his social desirability, while a

woman’s “other-oriented” lie was driven by the desire to protect the feelings of others.

A study by Tyler and Feldman (2004) explored the frequency and nature of lying

in men and women. In the study, 208 undergraduate students were grouped to the same

or opposite gender partners and were assigned to one of two expectations: a) will not

meet the partner again, or b) will meet the partner 3 times. Paralleling previous research,

the study confirmed that lying was a standard social interaction behavior. A total of 80%

of the participants acknowledged that they lied at least once during a 10 minute

conversation. The number of lies told ranged from 0 to 8 in a 10 minute interaction. In

contrast to previous research, the results indicated that women had a greater frequency of

lying than men. Frequency of lying was not dependent on the gender of the individual

being deceived. Researchers explained the difference in frequency as a result of the

social context of lying and the predisposition of women to regulate their response to be

7

socially accepted by others. The explanation was further supported by the frequency of

lying being greater for woman than men if the woman was given the expectation of

meeting the partner again.

Current Investigation

The research discussed demonstrates that there are four main limitations in the

current research on lying behavior. The first restriction is that a majority of the research

involves members of federal and local agencies. As a result, the work is limited in its

scope of application outside the criminal, judicial and government arena. It is not

applicable to the general population. A second constraint is that the research relies

heavily on skin polygraph tests and psychophysiology assessments. The use of these

techniques to detect deception assumes that most liars have a criminal background or a

malicious intent. The third short coming is the lack of research comparing the lying

behavior of men and women. Research has identified what motivates a lie in men as

opposed to women, but a side-by-side comparison of the act of lying by gender is

missing. The fourth draw back is that the research does not compare the act of lying

(self) and the observation of a lie (other). Essentially, there has been no assessment of

how an individual lies and how that same individual perceives another person lie.

Consequently, the goal of the current study is to expand on the current research and

quantify the lying behavior of men, women, the self, and other. This will be done by

incorporating the established methodologies of lying assessments, which include videos

provided by Mark Frank’s research group (no current publication) and the BRDB from

Lucy Akehurst’s research (Akehurst et al., 1996).

8

This study will attempt to generalize the perception of lying behavior to the

general population and investigate gender differences of lying behavior. The focus is to

address the following questions: 1) do men and women pick up on and exhibit different

lying cues; 2) what is an individual’s behavior while communicating deceptive

information to others. For the purposes of this study, the term “lying cue” can be loosely

defined as the movement and/or change in the body, face, voice and/or language that may

be the result of lying. The term “lying cue self-description” is the individual’s

interpretation or identification of his/her own lying cues.

Hypotheses

The three hypotheses under investigation were as follows: 1) there will be a

difference between the lying cues observed by men and women, 2) there will be a

difference in lying cue self-description of men and women, and 3) there will be a

correlation between the lying cue self-description and the lying cues observed by men

and women.

Based on the research in the field, I believed that the study results would

demonstrate no significant difference in the lying cues observed by men and women.

This speculation was based on the motivation people have for deception being transferred

to the self-perception of lying (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). However, I expected there

would be significant differences in the perceived lying cue self-description of men and

women. Specifically, women would have greater responses in the BRDB than men on

the perceived self-description of lying cues. This rationale was based on the research

indicating that a woman’s lying behavior is based on social acceptance (Tyler &

9

Feldman, 2004). Therefore, it was my speculation that the self-description of lying cues

might also be based on social acceptance. In addition, I predicted there would be a small

to modest correlation in the lying cues for self and other based on Bond and DePaulo’s

(2006) meta-analysis.

10

Design and Method

Research Participants

One hundred and twenty-seven students and volunteers from San Jose State

University (SJSU) were recruited to participate in the study. The 68 female and 59 male

participants were recruited from the Introduction Psychology Research Pool by sign up

postings and during Open Research Day. Open Research Day is a four hour period

during which undergraduate psychology students have the opportunity to participate in a

research study to earn required credit for course work. According to a power analysis

provided by G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), 111 participants were

required to achieve an actual power of .95 to find a medium effect of .03 and an alpha of

.05. This study exceeded this requirement. Despite the unequal number of male and

female participants, efforts were made to have an equal number in the study.

An inclusion criterion for the study was established and listed on the sign up

posting for Open Research Day. The sole requirement was that all participants should be

fluent in written and spoken English to participate in the study. Participants evaluated

themselves for this requirement, and it was assumed that they were fluent in written and

spoken English if they choose to participate in the study. This inclusion criterion was

necessary because the videos and 64-item BRDB questionnaires were in English. The

intention of this was twofold 1) to minimize misunderstanding and misinterpretation of

the instructions and 2) limit confounding variables in the participants interpretation of the

deceptive behavior observed in the video.

11

Study Design

The study was a combination of a 2 x 2 mixed subjects design and a correlational

design. The two independent variables included: gender (male or female; between

subjects) of the participant and person rated (self and other ratings of deception; within

subjects). The dependent variable was the BRDB questionnaire, which assesses the

participant’s evaluation of their own perceived deceptive behavior (self) and assessing

another person’s deceptive behavior (other).

Setting and Apparatus

The study was conducted in a SJSU classroom. The same classroom was used

throughout the study and the participants sat around a conference style table. All

participants were presented the lying and truth-telling videos on a standard projector

screen, six feet in diagonal. The projection screen was positioned in the center of a wall

three to eight feet away from the participants; the distance varied based on the

participant’s position at the conference table. The sound for the video was amplified

from a laptop by two standard desk top speakers. The speakers were positioned at

opposite ends of the conference table, equal distance from the center of the table. The

volume was consistent throughout Open Research Day. All participants were able to

view the projector screen and hear the videos.

Deceptive and Non-Deceptive Videos. The acts of lying and truth-telling were

depicted on two separate videos produced by Mark Frank’s research team. For the

purposes of the study the videos represented how the participants assessed another

person’s deceptive behavior. The video depicting deceptive behavior was 46 seconds in

12

length, and that depicting non-deceptive behavior was 55 seconds in length. Each video

depicted a different male interviewee who was being questioned by a man, not visible on

the screen, about money that was stolen from a lab. The man demonstrating deceptive

behavior lied to the interviewer, and the man demonstrating the non-deceptive behavior

provided a truthful response. Both videos had the same setting, questions, male

interviewer, and cinematography. The videos have been validated with the Facial Action

Coding System by Frank’s research team. This validation confirmed that the two men on

the video exhibited different facial behaviors and body language that were consistent with

their truth-telling status.

Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior (BRDB). Deception was assessed with

the Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior questionnaire (BRDB, Appendix A), which

was designed by Lucy Akehurst and colleagues for assessing deceptive behavior. It

evaluates four types of lying cues using four subscales: 18 speech behavior lying cues, 16

facial behavior lying cues, 13 body language lying cues, and 17 content of statement

lying cues. The speech behavior cues include items that illustrate the details in dialogue

(e.g., “repetitions” and “monotonous voice”). The facial behavior cues comprise of items

that describe the movements and expressions in the face (e.g., “twitches” and “unfriendly

facial expression”). The body language cues consist of items that detail the movements

by the body (e.g., “gesticulation” and “reserved posture”). The content of statement cues

focus on the type of information conveyed in a statement (e.g., “amount of details” and

“spontaneous corrections or additions”).

13

The cues were evaluated for frequency and intensity during deceptive behavior in

comparison to truthful behavior. Participants graded the lying cues on a 7-point scale of

+3, +2, +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, which allowed grading between extremes as defined below:

0 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding behavior does not

systematically change during your deceptive behavior compared with your

truthful behavior.

-3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding behavior strongly

decreases when you are lying compared to when you are telling the truth.

+ 3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding behavior

strongly increases when you are lying compared to when you are telling

the truth.

The same BRDB was used for the assessment of self (perception of own lying

behavior) and other’s deceptive behavior (Appendix A). The only difference between the

two questionnaires was the instructions provided to the participants, which explained how

to score the lying cues in the context of themselves and others. There was limited

published literature addressing the reliability and validity of the BRDB. However,

according to Akehurst and colleagues, who constructed the questionnaire, it included all

the nonverbal behavior reported in lying behavior research, speech cues from the

Statement Validity Analysis content criteria (Steller & Kohnken, 1989), and additional

cues believed to be important while lying.

For the purposes of this study a set of demographic questions that assessed other’s

deceptive behavior was added to the last page of the questionnaire. These questions

14

asked the participants to specify their gender, age, occupation, familiarity with deception,

and awareness of Statement Validity Assessments. The awareness question was included

to determine if the participants were familiar with the videos and the BRDB. The

intention was to exclude participants that were familiar with Statement Validity

Assessments and capable of guessing the hypothesis of the study.

Procedures

Prior to the study, participants were provided the SJSU Institutional Review

Board-approved informed consent form (Appendix B). Sufficient time was allowed for

the participants to read the consent form and ask any questions related to the study.

Participant confidentiality was maintained by not including personal identifying

information on the 64-item questionnaire (i.e., name, SJSU student number). Participants

were identified by ordered sequence and gender.

The same researcher conducted the study, briefed participants about the study,

provided instructions, and debriefed per a predetermined study script (Appendix C).

Participants were told that the study was about lying behavior and that they would be

asked to answer some questions about themselves, watch two short videos, and answer

some questions about the videos. Following the introductory briefing, the participants

were presented paper copies of the BRDB and asked to complete a self-assessment of

their own lying cues. Participants indicated their completion of the questionnaire by

raising their hand, and the researcher reviewed it for incomplete or unclear responses. If

information was missing the participant was asked to provide an answer before turning in

the questionnaire. Once all the questionnaires were completed and collected the

15

participants were presented two videos on a projector screen. Participants were told to

watch the videos and notified that some of the people in the video would be lying and

some would be telling the truth. The videos were presented once, in the order of

deceptive behavior and then non-deceptive behavior. After viewing the videos, the

participants were presented the 64-item questionnaire and asked to identify the lying cues

they observed in the videos. Observing lying cues in the videos simulated their manner

of observing lying cues in others. After the review for missing responses and completion

of the questionnaire, the participants were debriefed, the intention of the study explained,

and participants’ questions addressed.

16

Results

Each participant’s numerical response from the BRDB for self and BRDB for

other’s deceptive behavior and the demographic responses were entered and analyzed in

Predictive Analytics Software, PASW Statistics (formerly SPSS Statistics). Data was

considered missing and left blank if a participant did not indicate a response to a

question. Only 12 data points were missing. This low number of missing data was due

to the researcher reviewing the questionnaires for incomplete and unclear responses

during the study to ensure that participants completed the questions appropriately.

The review of the demographic questions indicated that 56% of the participants

were employed in jobs outside of school. The mean age of the participants was 19.43

years (SD = 3.32) and ranged from 18 to 42 years. In addition, all participants were

unfamiliar with Statement Validity Assessments (verbal veracity assessment tool) and

were not successful in determining the study hypothesis. Therefore, the data for all 127

participants were included in the data analyses.

In an effort to simplify the interaction of gender and lying cues and clearly assess

the correlations, the BRDB was subdivided into its four subscales of lying cues: speech

behavior lying cues, facial behavior lying cues, body language lying cues, and content of

statement lying cues (Table 1). These four subscales are consistent with the headings

with in the BRDB.

17

Table 1

Summary of Four Lying Cue Subscales in the Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior

(BRDB)

Lying Cue Subscale Total Number of Items Item Number

Speech Behavior 18 1 – 18

Facial Behavior 16 19 – 34

Body Language 13 35 – 47

Content of Statement 17 48 – 64

Examination of Reliability

To assess the BRDB for internal consistency the reliability of the four sub scales

for the assessment of self and others were estimated with the calculation of Cronbach’s

alpha. Table 2 indicates that for the assessment of self the lowest internal consistency

was in the facial behavior and content of statement subscales, while the highest internal

consistency was in the speech behavior subscale. In addition, for the assessment of

others, the lowest internal consistency was in the content of statement subscale, while the

highest internal consistency was in the speech behavior and body language sub scales.

Overall the level of reliability calculated by the Cronbach’s alpha indicated a strong level

of consistency.

18

Table 2

Summary of Cronbach’s Alpha of the Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior (BRDB) by

Four Subscales and Assessment

Lying Cue Subscale Assessment of Self Alpha

Assessment of Others Alpha

Speech Behavior .84 .81

Facial Behavior .76 .80

Body Language .83 .81

Content of Statement .76 .78

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of each of the 64-item lying cues was conducted to

examine the shape of distribution of the participant’s responses for self-assessment and

others assessment of lying cues. The total responses for an item, minimum and

maximum response value, mean response, and standard deviation of a response were

reviewed.

The item means for self-assessment ranged for men from a low of M = -.29 to

high of M = .69 and female from a low of M = -.16 to a high of M = .94. The means for

the others assessment ranged for men from a low of M = -.31 to a high of M = 1.78 and

female from a low of M = -.65 and a high of M = 1.69. Overall the majority of the self

and other means were near .05 and the minimum and maximum responses ranged from -3

to +3 for most of the items, and the standard deviation was around 1. This limited mean

range implied that the participant’s responses to the BRDB did not dramatically change,

however there were extremes for specific lying cue items. For the self-assessment,

19

item16, “range of vocabulary” had the greatest lying cue decrease (M = -.17) and item 39,

“shrugs” had the greatest lying cue increase (M = .79). For the assessment of others, item

25, “smiling” had the greatest lying cue decrease (M = -.49) and item 22, “eye blinks”

had the greatest lying cue increase (M = 1.73).

Inferential Statistics

The first hypothesis (there will be a difference between the lying cues observed

by men and women) was evaluated by an independent sample t-test comparing the

responses of men and women across the four subscales. The second hypothesis (there

will be a difference in lying cue self-description of men and women) was also evaluated

by an independent sample t-test. The t-test evaluated the mean differences between men

and women for each of the 64-items on the BRDB. The third hypothesis (there will be a

correlation between the lying cue self-description and the lying cues observed by men

and women) was evaluated with a Pearson correlation.

Independent sample t-test, with equal variance assumed were conducted to assess

whether there was a main effect between gender, specifically the difference between the

mean scores by gender of the four lying cue groups of the BRDB. Before the t-test was

conducted the participant’s responses for each of the four subscales was summed and the

total was averaged. Table 3 indicates that for the self-assessment of lying cues there was

a statistically significant difference between the responses for men and women for the

speech behavior and facial behavior lying cue groups. In both cases women were more

likely than men to describe themselves as changing their speech and facial behavior when

lying compared to when they were not lying. The effect size (d = .39) indicated that there

20

was a .39 standard deviation difference between men and women, which further implied

that women were more likely than men to vary their speech behavior when telling a lie.

In addition, women were nearly a half a standard deviation higher than men (d = .46) in

the amount of change that occurred in their self-assessment of their facial behavior lying

cues. These results implied that women were more likely than men to vary their facial

behavior when lying. Table 4 indicates that for the assessment of others lying cues there

was no statistical significance between the means for men and women.

Table 3

Summary of Self Lying Cue Subscales by Gender

Lying Cue Subscale Gender M SD t p d

Speech Behavior Male Female

4.23 8.93

13.17 10.71 -2.20 .03 .39

Facial Behavior Male Female

3.76 6.99

9.77 8.03 -2.04 .04 .46

Body Language Male Female

4.82 7.10

9.35 7.73 -1.49 .14 .27

Content of Statement Male Female

4.05 7.12

9.43 9.44 -1.82 .07 .32

21

Table 4

Summary of Others Lying Cue Subscales by Gender

In addition to the subscales, independent sample t-test, with equal variance

assumed, were conducted to assess if there were significant differences between the item

mean responses of men and women for each of the BRDB for self and others assessments

of lying cues. For self-assessment there was a significance (p = .00) for item 4, “false

starts” and there was significance (p = .01) for item 17, “length/detail of answer”. For

both of these items, women had a higher mean response than men, indicating they were

more likely to change these forms of speech behavior when lying. For others assessment

there was a significance difference (p = .04) for item 46, “reserved posture” and

significance (p = .01) for item 59, “description of interactions”. For both of these items,

women had the higher mean, implying that when a woman evaluates other’s lying cues,

she is more likely to notice changes in reserved posture and description of interactions.

Pearson correlation analyses were calculated to evaluate if the self and other’s

lying cues were positively correlated on each of the BRDB subscales (Table 5). There

were significant correlations between the self-assessment lying cues and the assessment

Lying Cue Subscale Gender M SD t p d

Speech Behavior Male Female

12.61 12.05

10.53 10.82 .30 .77 .05

Facial Behavior Male Female

11.39 10.67

9.84 10.00 .41 .69 .07

Body Language Male Female

5.17 5.31

8.05 7.29 -.12 .92 .02

Content of Statement Male Female

4.89 6.04

10.34 9.12 -.66 .51 .12

22

of other’s lying cues. There was a significant correlation (with p at 0.01 level to control

for family-wise error) for the following: other speech behavior and self body language;

other facial behavior and self body language; other facial behavior and self content of

statement. In addition, there were trends (i.e., p <.05) for the following: other speech

behavior and self speech behavior; other body language and self body language; other

content of statement and self content of statement.

Table 5

Summary of Pearson Correlations by Lying Cue Subscale of Self and Other

Self

Speech Self Face

Self Body

Self Content

StatementOther

Speech Other Face

Other Body

Other Content

StatementSelf Speech

1

Self Face

.625** 1

Self Body

.548** .732** 1

Self Content Statement

.337** .490** .494** 1

Other Speech

.204 .151 .321** .174 1

Other Face

.090 .162 .383** .313** .707** 1

Other Body

.126 -.041 .186 .042 .456** .561** 1

Other Content Statement

.126 -.025 .172 .212 .475** .511** .558** 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 –tailed); N ranges from 123 to 127.

23

Unplanned Analyses

Exploratory Pearson correlation analyses were conducted on self-self and other-

other cues and for gender and the item responses to the BRDB. There was a significant

correlation (with p at the 0.01 level to control for family-wise error) for the following

self-assessments of lying cues: facial and speech behavior, body language and speech

behavior; body language and facial behavior; content of statement and speech behavior;

content of statement and facial behavior; content of statement and body language. There

was a significant correlation (with p at the 0.01 level to control for family-wise error) for

the following assessment of other’s lying cues: facial and speech behavior, body

language and speech behavior; body language and facial behavior; content of statement

and speech behavior; content of statement and facial behavior; and content of statement

and body language.

24

Discussion

The study evaluated the lying cues observed by men and women in themselves as

well as in others. The three hypotheses examined addressed whether there was a

difference in the lying cues men and women expressed; whether men and women noticed

different lying cues in others; and whether there were correlations between the lying cues

reported in self and others.

Supporting the prediction, men and women differed in their lying cue self-

description for speech behavior and facial behavior. There were no gender-specific

differences on the self-reported lying cues for body language and content of statement.

In addition, there were no differences in the lying cues men and women observed in other

people. Therefore, the only difference between sexes was that when women lie, they

claimed they had a greater change in frequency and intensity of speech and facial

behavior in comparison to when they told the truth. These results can be explained by the

conclusion from Tyler and Feldman’s (2004) research, which concluded that women

regulated their responses to be socially accepted by others. Therefore, the women in the

study anticipated a greater change in the self-lying cues because they regulated their

speech and facial cues to be socially accepted.

Interestingly, there were many correlations between the lying cues for self and

others. The most evident correlation was the positive linear relationships within all the

self subgroups and the other subgroups. These correlations implied that when the

research participants perceived that they made changes in one of their own lying cues,

this change was correlated with a self-lying cue. This correlation can be further

25

interpreted to suggest that the cues were working together when the research participants

were deceptive or observed deception.

The lying cues observed in others had the same relationship. Based on this

finding, one can conclude that the act of lying and interpreting lying behavior is a

complex system of inter-related behavior changes. The lying cues were clearly

connected and may even have influenced or primed the individual in enacting and

observing another cue. For example, if a person observed someone blink frequently, then

that may trigger the individual to focus on stuttering speech behavior, which may in turn

trigger another lying cue to be observed. Essentially, a chain reaction would be triggered

to observe lying cues.

There were also correlations between the other speech behavior and self body

language, other facial behavior and self body language, other facial behavior and self

content of statement. The correlations indicated that when a person lies and observes

another person lie, these specific lying subgroups are correlated. The meta-analysis by

Bond and DePaulo (2006) alluded to this connection between the self and others.

However, the results of this study were not consistent with the findings of Bond and

DePaulo (2006) and Akehurst and colleagues (1996) because their research revealed

evidence for differences between self and other lying behavior. In contrast, this study

found evidence that there were positive correlations between the self and others lying

cues. Interestingly, the results of the current study were consistent with the self-and-

other study by Epstein and Feist (1988). Their study explored if there was a correlation

between the favorable ratings of self and others in preadolescent boys and girls. The

26

results indicated that there were significant positive correlations for self and others in

favorable ratings.

There are a couple of limitations of the study. The most obvious was the inability

to generalize the results from the research sample to a wider population. Specifically, the

research participants were undergraduate psychology students in a metropolitan

California area; the responses of these participants may not be applicable to different age

groups, demographic areas, and socio-economic groups on a larger population scale.

Another limitation was that the videos depicting deceptive and non-deceptive

behavior contained only men. The individuals lying, telling the truth, and interviewing

were of the same gender. Because gender was a factor being evaluated in the study, this

limitation may have influenced how participants answered the questions in the BRDB.

The male participants may have identified with the behavior of the men on the video,

while the women may not have been able to relate, which may have influenced their

responses to the self BRDB. Since only men were depicted lying or truth-telling the

videos may have also influenced the responses to the other BRDB. The male interviewee

may have primed the participants to only remember their interactions with male deceptive

behavior. Future studies can rule out these influences by incorporating multiple videos

and balancing the number of male and female individuals on the videos.

There are areas for improvement of this study. The first revision would be in the

study design. During the study, the participants were asked a question, “Do you think the

people in the video were lying or telling the truth?” However, the participants did not

write down their answers, so their accuracy of identifying deception was not evaluated.

27

Their response would have been helpful because the ability of a man or woman to

correctly identify deception could have been correlated with the lying cues he/she

observed.

In addition, the videos depicting deceptive and non-deceptive behavior could have

been evaluated with the BRDB questionnaire, which would have indicated which of the

lying cue subscales were expressed in the video. Such changes would have allowed a

clear correlation between the lying cues depicted in the deceptive video, in the BRDB,

and by the participants in evaluating other’s lying behavior.

The second improvement would be to change the dependent variable. Because

published literature demonstrating the validity and reliability the BRDB is lacking, any

conclusions drawn from it are necessarily tentative. Another limitation would be that the

BRDB evaluates frequency and intensity within the same scale, which implies that they

are interrelated. A more comprehensive evaluation would be possible if frequency and

intensity were defined with in the scale and evaluated on separate rating scales. The ideal

method would be to use a gold standard in assessing deceptive behavior. However, since

the literature does not indicate an agreement to a gold standard, another possibility is the

use of the Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID). ACID is a validated tool

that is an integrated system composed of investigative interviews to detect deception

(Colwell et al., 2008). This technique could be applied to the evaluation of the self and

other’s lying behavior.

Future research would benefit from tackling the question of the cause of the

correlation between the lying cues an individual perceives, expresses, and observes in

28

others. Specifically, what factors influence how people express lying cues and how they

perceive these lying cues in themselves and in others? Based on the research to date, a

limited number of influences have been identified for being deceitful (e.g., motivation,

social acceptance) and being successful in detecting deceit (e.g., experience, occupation).

However, the literature does not demonstrate a clear connection between the practiced

self-deception and evaluation of other’s deception. If a silver lining is found in the

current study and in other similar studies, it may lead to a better understanding of

deception and human behavior in general.

29

References

Akehurst, L., Kohnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Laypersons’ and police officers’

beliefs regarding deceptive behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461-

467.

Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Pantheon.

Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of Deception Judgments. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214-234.

Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Faul, F. (1997). How to Use G*Power website. Retrieved

March 8, 2009, from http://www.psycho.uniduesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/

how_to_ use_gpower.html

Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C. Y., Memon, A., Taylor, L., & Prewett, J. (2008).

Assessment criteria indicative of deception (ACID): An integrated system of

investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative

Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4(3), 167-180.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996).

Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5),

979-995.

Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage.

New York: Times Books.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.

Psychiatry, 32, 88-105.

30

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist,

46(9), 913-920.

Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological

Science, 10(3), 263-266.

Ennis, E., Vrij, A., & Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday

life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), 105-118.

Epstein, S., & Feist, G. (1988). Relation between self-and other-acceptance and its

moderation by identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54(2), 309-315.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible

statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical

sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Ford, C. V. (1996). Lies! lies! lies! the psychology of deceit. Washington, D.C:

American Psychiatric Press.

Ford, E.B. (2006). Lie detection: Historical, neuropsychiatric and legal dimensions.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 3(29), 159-177.

Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across

different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72, 1429-1439.

31

Frank, M., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different

deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 486-

495.

Iacono, W. G. (2008). Accuracy of polygraph techniques: problems using confessions

to determine ground truth. Physiology and Behavior, 95(1-2), 24-26.

lacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: two surveys of

scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 426-433.

Kleinmuntz, B., & Szucko, J. J. (1984). Lie detection in ancient and modern times

a call for contemporary scientific study. American Psychologist, 39(7), 766-

776.

Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to

detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1).

Polygraph Validity Research. (n.d.). In American Polygraph Association online website.

Retrieved from http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/polygraph-validity-

research Simpson, J. R. (2008). Functional MRI lie detection: Too good to be true? Journal of

American Academy Psychiatry Law, 36, 491-498.

Steller, M., & Kohnken, G. (1989). Criteria based content analysis. In D. C. Raskin

(Ed.), Psychological methods for criminal investigation and evidence (pp.217-

245). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tosone, C. (2006). Living everyday lies; the experience of self. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 34(3), 335-348.

32

Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. R. (2004). Truth, lies, and self-presentation: How gender

and anticipated future interaction relate to deceptive behavior. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 34(12), 2602-2615.

33

Appendix A

Beliefs Regarding Deceptive Behavior (BRDB) Questionnaires for Self and Others’

Deceptive Behavior

QUESTIONNAIRE: SELF DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

Instructions (for own deceptive behavior condition) While completing this questionnaire try to recall situations in which you have given deceptive information to other people. How did your behaviors change if they were to be compared with those during a truthful account? In the following pages are listed a number of potential behaviors and content characteristics of statements which you may or may not feel differ during your own deceptive and truthful accounts. Please indicate, with a “X” under the appropriate number, whether you feel behavior or content characteristic increases or decreases in frequency/intensity during deceptive behavior compared with truthful behavior. 0 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior does not systematically change during your deceptive behavior compared with your truthful behavior.

-3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior strongly decreases when you are lying compared to when you are telling the truth.

3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior strongly increases when you are lying compared to when you are telling the truth.

The numbers between -3 and +3 allow for grading between each extreme. For example, +1 would indicate a small increase in the frequency/intensity of that behavior. Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in the judgment you would make with regard to your own personal experience of your own deceptive behavior.

* Thank you for giving up your time to help in this study *

34

-3 = strong decrease +3 = strong increase

-2 = moderate decrease +2 = moderate increase

-1 = small decrease +1 = small increase

0 = no change A: SPEECH BEHAVIOR

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

1 Pauses

2 Stuttering

3 Clearing of throat

4 False starts

5 Grammatical errors

6 Repetitions

7 Clichés

8 Evasive responses

9 Response latency

10 Hectic speech

11 Faltering speech

12 Voice pitch

13 Monotonous voice

14 Shaky voice

15 Soft voice

16 Range of vocabulary

17 Length/detail of answers

18 Short, simple sentences

35




0 = no change

B: FACIAL BEHAVIOR

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

19 Changes in line of sight

20 Eye contact

21 Twitches

22 Eye blinks

23 Frowning

24 Wrinkling of nose

25 Smiling

26 Biting of lips

27 Swallowing

28 Head movements

29 Blushing

30 Turning pale

31 Variations in facial expression

32 Tense facial expression

33 Unfriendly facial expression

34 Nervous facial expression

36




0 = no change C: BODY LANGUAGE

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

35 Postural shifts

36 Shaking

37 Self-manipulation or manipulation of objects

38 Gesticulation

39 Shrugs

40 Arm movements

41 Hand and finger movements

42 Leg movements

43 Feet movements

44 Turning body towards the interviewer

45 Tense posture

46 Reserved posture

47 Nervous bodily expression

37




0 = no change D: CONTENTS OF STATEMENTS

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

48 Plausible description of events

49 Logical consistency

50 Unstructured report

51 Amount of details

52 Unusual details

53 Superfluous details

54 Description of own feelings

55 Description of other's feelings

56 Reproduction of speech

57 Description of unexpected complications

58 Relating events to independent external context

59 Description of interactions

60 Spontaneous corrections or additions

61 Admitting lack of memory or knowledge

62 Raising doubts about own testimony

63 Self-deprecation

64 Contradictions

38

QUESTIONNAIRE: OTHERS’ DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR

Instructions (for others’ deceptive behavior condition) While completing this questionnaire try to recall the videos. How did the behaviors of these people change if they were to be compared with those during a truthful account? In the following pages are listed a number of potential behaviors and content characteristics of statements which you may or may not feel differ during other people's deceptive and truthful accounts. Please indicate, with a “X” under the appropriate number, whether you feel a behavior or content characteristic increases or decreases in frequency/intensity during deceptive behavior compared with truthful behavior. 0 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior does not systematically change during deceptive behavior compared with truthful behavior.

-3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior strongly decreases when a person is lying compared to when s/he is telling the truth.

3 - indicates that the frequency/intensity of the corresponding

behavior strongly increases when a person is lying compared to when s/he is telling the truth.

The numbers between -3 and +3 allow for grading between each extreme. For example, +1 would indicate a small increase in the frequency/intensity of that behavior. Please remember that there are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in the judgment you would make with regard to your own personal experience of other people's deceptive behavior.

* Thank you for giving up your time to help in this study *

39




0 = no change A: SPEECH BEHAVIOR

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

1 Pauses

2 Stuttering

3 Clearing of throat

4 False starts

5 Grammatical errors

6 Repetitions

7 Clichés

8 Evasive responses

9 Response latency

10 Hectic speech

11 Faltering speech

12 Voice pitch

13 Monotonous voice

14 Shaky voice

15 Soft voice

16 Range of vocabulary

17 Length/detail of answers

18 Short, simple sentences

40




0 = no change B: FACIAL BEHAVIOR

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

19 Changes in line of sight

20 Eye contact

21 Twitches

22 Eye blinks

23 Frowning

24 Wrinkling of nose

25 Smiling

26 Biting of lips

27 Swallowing

28 Head movements

29 Blushing

30 Turning pale

31 Variations in facial expression

32 Tense facial expression

33 Unfriendly facial expression

34 Nervous facial expression

41




0 = no change C: BODY LANGUAGE

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

35 Postural shifts

36 Shaking

37 Self-manipulation or manipulation of objects

38 Gesticulation

39 Shrugs

40 Arm movements

41 Hand and finger movements

42 Leg movements

43 Feet movements

44 Turning body towards the interviewer

45 Tense posture

46 Reserved posture

47 Nervous bodily expression

42




0 = no change D: CONTENTS OF STATEMENTS

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

48 Plausible description of events

49 Logical consistency

50 Unstructured report

51 Amount of details

52 Unusual details

53 Superfluous details

54 Description of own feelings

55 Description of other's feelings

56 Reproduction of speech

57 Description of unexpected complications

58 Relating events to independent external context

59 Description of interactions

60 Spontaneous corrections or additions

61 Admitting lack of memory or knowledge

62 Raising doubts about own testimony

63 Self-deprecation

64 Contradictions

43

Finally, we would be grateful if you would complete the items below to help us with our research. Age: ______ Sex: Male/Female 1. Are you employed at present? If so, what is your job title? ____________________________________________________________ 2. Does your job require judging peoples' credibility on a professional level? If so,

please elaborate. ____________________________________________________________ 3. Have you ever read any literature (i.e. books, journal articles, reports etc.) relevant to

this area of research (the detection of deception)? If yes, please specify. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 4. Have you any knowledge, at all, of a technique known as Statement Validity Assessment? If yes, please elaborate. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 5. Do you have any comments regarding this questionnaire? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

44

Appendix B

Informed Consent Form Agreement to Participate in Research Responsible Investigator: Alysha Khavarian Title of Protocol: Lying Cues Observed by Men and Women 1. You have been asked to participate in a research study investigating how people observe lying

behavior. As part of the task you will be asked to watch a couple of 1 minute videos and then answer questions about what you viewed. The study will take place at San Jose State University in the Psychology Building.

2. The risks encountered in this study are no greater than those encountered in day-to-day

Life.

3. You are not expected to receive any direct benefits from participation in the research.

4. Although the results of this study may be published, no information that could identify you will be included.

5. There is no compensation for participation in this study.

6. Questions about this research may be addressed to the researcher or to Dr. Greg Feist, Assistant

Professor of Psychology, 408 924-5617, [email protected]. Complaints about this research may be presented to Sheila Bienenfeld, Departmental Chair, Psychology Department, (408) 924-5600, [email protected]. Questions about a research subject’s rights or research-related injury may be presented to Pamela Stacks, Ph.D., Associate Vice President, Graduate Studies and Research, at (408) 924-2480.

7. No service of any kind, to which you are otherwise entitled, will be lost or jeopardized if you

choose to “not participate” in the study.

8. Your consent is being given voluntarily. You may refuse to participate in the entire study or in any part of the study. If you decide to participate in the study, you are free to withdraw at any time without negative effect on your relations with San Jose State University or with any other participating institutions or agencies.

9. At the time that you sign this consent form, you will receive a copy of it for your records, signed

and dated by the investigator. 1. The signature of a subject on this document indicates agreement to participate in the study. 2. The signature of a researcher on this document indicates agreement to include the above

named subject in the research and attestation that the subject has been fully informed of his or her rights.

_______________________________________ _____________ Signature Date

_______________________________________ _____________ Investigator’s Signature Date

45

Appendix C

Study Script

Instructions: Thanks for choosing to volunteer for this study. Please read over the

informed consent and let me know if you have any questions. Sign the bottom if you

choose to participate in this study. This study is about lying behavior and it will involve

you answering some questions about yourself and watching a video and then answering

some questions about the video.

Study Procedures Instructions:

1. Please complete this questionnaire. Fill it out as though you are answering these

questions about your own lying behavior. Try to remember a recent situation

when you were deceitful and answer the questions based on you own behavior.

2. Now you are going to watch two videos. Some of the people in the video will be

lying and some will be telling the truth. Please watch without talking or writing

any notes.

3. Do you think the people in the video were lying or telling the truth?

4. Please complete this questionnaire. Fill it out as though you are answering these

questions based on what you look for in trying to determine if someone is lying.

Answer the questions based on how you observed the lying behavior of the person

in the video. Also complete the extra questions on the last page.

Debriefing Instructions: This study is designed to determine whether men and women

notice different lying cues and if people view their own lying differently than what they

observe in lying behavior in others. Any questions? Thanks for participating.

Deception: Analysis of the Lying Cues Observed by Men ...

Documents